memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Curry type
Renaming article Seeing as "Shelley class" is a term devised by internet fans, and not relayed in any published form, should we take the more canonically neutral road and move this article to "Curry type" and leave the apocryphal designation as a footnote? --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:21, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Already done. I was thinking the same thing. -- Michael Warren 17:31, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) Ok, cool. We could probably put both Curry and Raging Queen under this, since they are basically the same type of vessel (this is one instance where "type" versus "class" will work in our favor.. these ships may not be the same exact class, but they are of the smae type so we don't need to create an unneccessary made-up class-name article for Raging Queen.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:40, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Again, already done :D. I've put it in Unknown ships for the moment, and made a note about it more than likely being a Curry type, with expected manufacturing variations due to their nature. -- Michael Warren 17:44, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) Picture description? The picture needs a description, both on this page and on it's own page. If it is the USS Cury, you could also place the picture there... -- Redge 01:54, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST) Removed Removed from apocrypha: *''There is also speculation that this ship class is meant to be a Marine troop transport, given its forward-mounted shuttlebay (which would make it easy for troops to egress the ship while being deployed) and secondary hull (which could be a detachable troop barracks).'' Speculation is not apocrypha, nor is it canon... --Alan 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Merge Suggestion Considering the "solution" we decided upon with the , it is only fair we should do the same here. We can't be "wishy-washy"; we either apply the solution to every applicable article or not do it all. There is no middle ground. We can mention this ship type in a separate section in the Excelsior-class article as an "Excelsior-class variant" as the producers intended. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC) :Massive oppose. We aren't dealing with a minor visual difference that was explained within dialog here. The differences between these two models are massive, there is absolutely no reason to believe they are the same any more than we should consider the as a Galaxy class subtype. They share similar components, sure, but in a configuration so massively different that the similarity in components only denotes that they are from the same technological generation (just as the Nebulae and Galaxies, or refit Connie's and Mirandas). In addition, I seem to recall we had background information from production sources indicating the intention of the Woden and Antares to be the same class. Can you say the same here? I can in fact say the opposite, given what we have in the DS9 TM. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC) ::Oppose. No kidding. It's not even close to an Excelsior class vessel. This isn't just a different module this is a complete rearrangement of the ship. There's no wishy-washy about this — Morder 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Oh I see... so you believe there should be a level of "difference-ness" in order to declare whether or not an unknown ship class should be the same class as a similar ship class. Well, let's look at Cobra's example, the Freedom-class vs the Galaxy-class. Well, it seems different enough. It has a saucer and neck totally different from that of a Galaxy. But its saucer is the same as a Niagara-class, so maybe those are the same class. Oh wait, both the Freedom and Nebula have been given official class names. >It's not even close to an Excelsior class vessel. This isn't just a different module this is a complete rearrangement of the ship. Well that's you opinion on how different one ship type has to be in order to be a different class. Based on the Antares-type, the criteria for this at MA is if the majority of the model is the same. But hey, a lot of these criteria are based on personal opinion, so let's base our criteria on canon evidence. Well I'll be. According to a comparison between the and the , the difference between two ship classes can be as little as a different number of phaser arrays! Even more, the ''Yellowstone'' and es show that the two classes can have no exterior changes whatsoever! Of course, I'm not without reason. We should have a more objective example of difference-ness. Having only minor differences to separate classes would be insane, except that those ships had their class made clear. Hmmm... how about the Soyuz class and the . Oh I see, the Soyuz only has minor changes, like a "module added" onto the back and some tacked-on sensor pods. Clearly, by the criteria set by the Antares-type, we should call the Soyuz a Miranda-class and then say that some Miranda''s had a module attached to their rear and sensor pods tacked on everywhere... oh wait, they were said to be two classes in canon and thus provide a criteria. I've hoped I made my point clear. Oh and Cobra: >In addition, I seem to recall we had background information from production sources indicating the intention of the Woden and Antares to be the same class. No, all Okuda said was that they reused the model. Kinda like how they reused the Talarian freighter model to represent different ship classes that happened to look similar. Game. Set. Match. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 01:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC) :You still are ignoring the immense difference in the physical models, I mean immense. Comparisons of the Soyuz and the Hermes and Saladin are completely out of place because they are a different problem, models that ''aren't significantly different. Were it not for the canon dialog calling them the different, we would consider them the same, just as we have with the Miranda variants. Not to mention we probably have dedication plates and such designating them of the same class. The Curry is the exact opposite situation. It isn't similar looking. :You know what? I'm not going to bother. This is pent up anger you have over the Antares (conveniently ignoring the dialog regarding the Woden in your "Game Set Match"). I'm not going to feed the troll. I've put in my vote of oppose, and so has someone else. I'm sure you'll be wanting to go to , , and just about everything else next. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC) :::"we either apply the solution to ''every applicable article or not do it all''" -- except that in our new age of common sense, this isn't an applicable article. That situation is not even similar to this one. Oppose. --From Andoria with Love 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC) ::::Antares/Woden --> additional, deliberate work put into it to make them look similar. ::::Curry/Excelsior --> additional, deliberate work put into it to make them look different. ::::Using my mad pattern matching skillz, I declare: these situations are different! (Yes, that's an oppose). -- Cid Highwind 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC) >Antares/Woden --> additional, deliberate work put into it to make them look similar. There is no evidence of this. The reason for using the same model could have been for time/economic reasons, which was a consideration for TOS-R. It would have been far harder to make theem the same model. There was no "additional, deliberate work". >Curry/Excelsior --> additional, deliberate work put into it to make them look different. The same could be said of the Antares and the Woden. >That situation is not even similar to this one. Hmm.. let's see. A new model created from an old one, with only moderate changes, and it both cases they are called "variants" of the source class. Sounds more alike then the way you put it. >conveniently ignoring the dialog regarding the Woden Dialogue that in the ORIGINAL episode had absolutely nothing to do with making the Antares and the Woden the same class, but instead referenced an "old freighter". Okuda may have tried to manipulate this dialog, but the original producer intent stands. >you'll be wanting to go to Yeager-type Well according to "official" production sources, the Yeager was called an Intrepid-variant... >Centaur type Well in my opinion, that type is different enough to be declared a different class. But hey, my opinion doesn't really matter does it. What does matter is the criteria shown by on-screen evidence. Oh wait... >The Curry is the exact opposite situation. It isn't similar looking. Hmm, let's see. Same secondary hull, except the shuttlebay is at the front, same connecting neck, except it is in the middle, and same saucer section, except it is connected in the centre. The only real difference is the the nacelles and nacelle pylons. Otherwise, the ship is say, 78% the same as an Excelsior, as opposed to say, a Cheyenne or a New Orleans, where both ships are considerably smaller. Oh yeah, and they also have canon class names. >just about everything else next. Actually, the cases like the Curry and the Antares are actually not that numerous, since in other "similar" ship comparisons, they clearly stated that they both had different class names. >I mean immense. Comparisons of the Soyuz and the Hermes and Saladin are completely out of place because they are a different problem, models that aren't significantly different. Were it not for the canon dialog calling them the different, we would consider them the same, just as we have with the Miranda variants. And I say it is wrong to automatically assume that a model of an unknown ship class that happens to use a model of an unknown ship class but at the same time has obvious, notable, and sizable differences should automatically be declared the same class, as the critera dictated by on-screen evidence tells us otherwise. What none of you have been able to explain to me, is why we consider the Raging Queen and the Curry two separate classes when we do so with the Antares. That's contradiction, and shows the flaws with our current Antares implementation. Both solutions can't be right. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC) ::::The problem is - you didn't even make that a relevant point of this discussion until now. You were making (imo, stupid) comments about the similarity between Curry-type and Excelsior-class, even including the borderline disruptive act of getting a merge discussion started for something that clearly shouldn't be merged. That's a clear case of MA:POINT, and won't win you any cookie points around here. -- Cid Highwind 15:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I don't want any "cookie points" if you referring to an equivalent to the "karma" system on some forums. What I want is Memory Alpha to actually follow its directive to be neutral and unbiased. That's all I care about when it comes to the site. And if I need to do unorthodox actions in order to complete my mission here, than so be it. It is obvious that doing the same over and over again isn't working, so you have forced me to be different.Ambassador/Ensign_Q 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) ::::: I dunno, it has Constitution/''Miranda''-class nacelles mounted on the bottom of the saucer...I'd be more tempted to say merge it with the Miranda class...I've yet to see an Excelsior with Constitution/''Miranda'' nacelles. --Alan 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC) :::::: Definitely an oppose from me. They are two distinct ship designs. There is nothing similar about them. -- TrekFan Talk 20:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) :::I think the engineering hull looks a little like Al from Quantum Leap, so maybe we should merge this page to Dean Stockwell. --From Andoria with Love 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC) >There is nothing similar about them. Yes, absolutely nothing similar about them, aside from the similarities I mentioned above. By now, all of you should have realized I have been making a point. We are prepared to create a level of "difference-ness" based on our own opinions rather than what is actually show on screen. I agree the Curry shouldn't be the same class as the Excelsior-class, based on the on-screen evidence presented by such class comparisons as the 'Soyuz' and the 'Miranda. However, that being said, we can't also say the ''Antares and the Woden are the same class either, just because they share the same model, as it would be contradictory to the evidence provided by such class comparisons as the '''Soyuz and the Miranda. Also, why is the Raging Queen different enough to be a different "type" than the when the difference between those two is arguably less than the Antares and the Woden? Looks like personal opinion is at it again! I suppose now someone may change the Raging Queen, to "slap me in the face" if you will, but that really isn't the point. In addition, I believe someone referenced "production source intent" as one bad excuse for putting the Antares and Woden together. Well, the DS9 Tech Manual, put together by similar "production sources", labels the unknown "types" like the "Yeager" and "Centaur" as variants of the class they share parts with {The Centaur is Excelsior-variant, the Yeager is Intrepid-variant, and so on.) Also, it was made clear that these unknown types are actually kitbashes of different ship parts, even though unofficial fansites like Ex Astris point out the bull in this statement. So maybe we should be too quick to reference production sources? Ambassador/Ensign_Q 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC) :You've made all of these points already. They've all been responded to, and no one agrees with you. Typing several kilobytes of the same thing is a waste of your time, particularly when you have already admitted here that you are only doing this to make a point (which is an entirely disruptive practice), and that on your user page you have established your intention of being a disruptive editor to this site for the foreseeable future. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC) :::Ah, so this is all a result of vigilantism, is it? Hmm... in that case, I think it's safe to ignore discussion this unless someone else comes along and feels it's a serious issue. As it stands this page has nothing to do with the Antares discussion and nobody agrees with Ensign Q anyway, so I don't think there's much more that can be added to this discussion. That said, it appears we're about to have our own version of MA:POINT, which will bring the good ensign's vigilante justice to a stop pretty quickly; if his vigilantism was justified and if vigilantism was actually the way to go, he might actually succeed in making some changes. As it stands, though, he's seeing things nobody else is seeing or at least not seeing to the extent he is, so there's really no need for any of it. And I am completely taking this discussion off-topic, so... to end... unless someone else besides our resident vigilante has an issue with this page and can bring up something not already addressed above, this discussion should remain closed. --From Andoria with Love 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Apocrypha Removed "Apocyrpha" section and comments: * '"The vessel has been given the non-canon designation Shelley-class by fans on the Internet, after the author of , , a reference to the fact that, like the creature in Shelley's story, ships of the Shelley-class are a gruesome collection of various parts that were never meant to fit together.'' There is no support from any legitimate non-fan communities to support this assertation. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:36, August 9, 2017 (UTC)